[LINK] MS strikes again
adrian at creative.net.au
Thu Jul 2 10:07:14 AEST 2009
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009, Danny Yee wrote:
> I agree with Brenda in that it's easy to screw up updates on Linux
> (dependcies sometimes break) or OS X (needs human intervention to
> sign license agreements).
> I disagree, however, with the common argument that Windows gets more
> malware attacks only because it is more widespread. Macs are already
> 10% or so of desktop machines (and are used by a disproportionate
> fraction of "high value" users) and Linux may only be on 1% of desktops
> but is on a very large proportion of servers, which are "higher value"
> targets than desktops. But I've seen no signs of increasing malware
> vulnerabilities there.
That is almost certainly because the type of box (user, server, etc) changes
the type of crap its used for.
There's plenty of entry vectors into "Linux boxes" that aren't deployed as
In fact, those hacked boxes end up causing a lot more harm. Hosting malware,
for example, is quite popular. Ripping off auth details for users and
comprimising further accounts/hosts is also popular. Gaining access to tons
of personal information is also quite popular.
So, it isn't as clearcut as the statistics let you believe. The only clear
cut thing is "people keep doing IT wrong."
More information about the Link